thanks for the quick response!!! so that is bad science is it?? but you choose to accept a theory, i underline theory

Like a lot of creationists who swallow this stuff, you seem to have some misunderstandings about the basic vocabulary of science. Like for instance, what “theory” means. A theory is a tested and confirmed framework for explaining a set of known facts. An idea that becomes a theory has already been through a lot of critical analysis and to a large extent been confirmed as true. Like the theory of gravity, or the germ theory of disease. Read all about it.

Now, *I* happen to agree with you that the rejection of God is the most plausible interpretation of scientific facts. But as I’ve shown you, it’s certainly not a necessary stance.

If as you claim we’ve evolved from Apes, i.e. we are animals, who or what gives you or anyone the right judge a “criminal”, i.e. murderer, rapist etc?? surely these people are only doing what an animal would do right??

We have that right based on the fact that we live in a society where we don’t wish to get murdered, raped, or robbed. The fact that people are animals does not, in any way, mean that people don’t have the right to band together and agree on rules that collectively protect us from harm. I wouldn’t enjoy living in a society without such laws, regardless of the imaginary friends that the people in such a society may or may not have. Would you?

I wonder who would profit from ascerting that there is no God?

People who care about whether they believe things that are true or not, would benefit from checking and verifying their beliefs. Intellectual honesty is the main motivation.

I only write out of concern mate! You are totally free to choose you belief, but if you scrape the thin layer that divides deception and truth you might find that there is in motion a deception in play. And yea God loves you too! even if it was just you, he would have come to die on that cross!

why the bible? because it is the only book that teaches of a sacrifice on behalf of mankind, if you can find another faith that teaches that come back, think about it! just one faith teaches so.

we by no means are better than another person including an athiest, a church isnt a bunch of holy people, no its a bunch of broken people by faith clining to a sacrifice paid for mankind.

we love you, we genuinely do! believe it or not.

God bless you man!!

Thank you for your concern. I understand that you very sincerely believe these stories that you are telling me, and I accept your interest in the spirit that it is offered. If you ever find some credible evidence to back up these faith-based beliefs, you be sure to let me know.

Round THREEEEEEEEEEEEE!

So you are a qualified scientist, yes??

No, I’m a software engineer. But the difference between you and me is that I understand the scientific method and process, and I accept the conclusions that mainstream scientists have reached. People who believe in creationism tend to be religious demagogues, who mostly have never even picked up a peer reviewed scientific journal, let alone published in one. There are a few notable exceptions, of course, but the overwhelming majority of scientists with relevant credentials recognize that life on earth evolved. So one of us, here, stands with mainstream science, and it’s not you.

So what you are in a saying that, If you have a book containing detailed instructions to build an aircraft for example, so according to your theory/belief, from having an instruction manual, you’re saying, without an external input, or design or any independent influence what-so-ever, A jumbo jet will appear out of thin air, right??

Of course I’m not saying that, because that isn’t how evolution works. And that’s the problem here: you’re ridiculing and dismissing a branch of science that you really don’t understand, and haven’t bothered to read about in any serious way. I could recommend plenty of science books that would clear up these misunderstandings. But I know you wouldn’t read them, so what’s the point?

Why would any evolutionist, perhaps holding doctrares and of great repute, would in his/her right mind, throw everything away and put everything on the line and come to the conclusion that evolution just isn’t scientific.

Well, on the one hand, they would do that because science thrives on proving things wrong. The quickest way to get a Nobel Prize is to do airtight research that overturns a previously accepted assumption. That’s what happened when Einstein discovered relativity.

On the other hand, evolution is extremely well understood and confirmed, and creationists are notorious for doing shoddy research and making conclusions based on their religious presuppositions. So most likely, a scientist who threw his lot in with that crowd would have a pretty rough uphill battle, due to the bad reputation that creationists have created for themselves. So you’re right — it wouldn’t be easy.

Thank you for your pleasant replies by the way.

All the best, just remember that God’s door waits open eagerly waiting for his sons and daughters to come home.

God Bless you and may you in your search find THE TRUTH!!!

God Bless you and your family!!

Yes, thank you again. And if Glinda the Good Witch of the North ever visits your house, may she grant all your wishes and give you some fashionable shoes.

If as you claim we’ve evolved from Apes, i.e. we are animals, who or what gives you or anyone the right judge a “criminal”, i.e. murderer, rapist etc?? surely these people are only doing what an animal would do right??

It’s the is/ought problem. It’s the same thing with evolution. I don’t see evolution as a doctrine. It’s just a fact, one that haunts us every flu season.

Also, to talk about “acting like animals” is about as meaningful as a statement as talking about “acting like vertebrates” or “acting like eukaryotes”.

If you think we evolved from eukaryotes, what gives you the right to insist that your neighbors don’t kill you?

Why would any evolutionist, perhaps holding doctrares and of great repute, would in his/her right mind, throw everything away and put everything on the line and come to the conclusion that evolution just isn’t scientific.

Gotta love how he ignored everything you said and just Gish-galloped on to a different talking point. No doubt he’ll continue to repeat the falsehoods and misunderstandings you corrected so beautifully. He’ll be underlining theory again before we know it.

When I said “That’s what happened when Einstein discovered relativity,” by “that” I didn’t mean “he got a Nobel prize.” I meant, a mainstream scientific idea was overturned and he was respected for it. I can see why my choice of wording was poor, but I shouldn’t fix the post since I’ve already sent the email. Thanks for the correction.

If as you claim we’ve evolved from Apes, i.e. we are animals, who or what gives you or anyone the right judge a “criminal”

Aren’t there many examples of social animals ‘passing judgment’ on others? It is part of what makes up a social species and the “right” to do so stems from the need to maintain a cohesive society. If there really was a god who was responsible for doling out punishment and forgiveness then people would not have the right.

it is the only book that teaches of a sacrifice on behalf of mankind, if you can find another faith that teaches that come back, think about it! just one faith teaches so.

Prometheus was doomed to eternal torment by Zeus for bringing fire to humanity; that’s a much bigger sacrifice than anything Jesus suffered. It was also a gift of knowledge and not just a convoluted attempt to fix a co(s)mic screwup.

Why do the religious think that ‘scientist’ is a title conferred by membership in some nefarious order, that THEN lets you start doing scientific study? Do they think it’s the same as becoming a Cardinal or something? You become a scientist BY DOING SCIENCE, and then if you did it right, you might get official recognition! That’s how it works!
Anyone who knows how the scientific process works, even if they’re a high school student, can do valid scientific study. It’s not like a religious top-down hierarchy of control, peoples.

Even in my brainwashed days as a fundie, I was troubled by the fact people in other religions (the false ones, obviously) were openly willing to die as martyrs. I think I usually hand-waved it away with demons or Satan.

XIAN: “No one would die for a lie!”
ME: “What about the 9/11 terrorists?”
XIAN: “Well…they were misled!”

Of course no one would die for something they knew to be a lie. But people die for lies all the time, because (drum roll) they believe the lie to be truth. It’s kind of what the whole practice of indoctrination is for.

Christians are authoritarian thinkers, though, so it’s hard for many of them to grasp that distinction. It’s the same reason they think atheism and evolution are “anti-God religions.” They can’t comprehend the very existence of any idea outside of a religious context.

Not to mention, they think evolution has a similar vulnerability that Christianity has with Jesus – demonstrate Jesus was made up and Christianity falls. Prove that Darwin made shit up (or was a racist, apparently), and evolution crumbles.

They can’t think outside of the doctrine/dogma box either, as opposed to confirmable testable claims.

But isn’t that the very thing we should address the?. In order to free someone’s mind, you have to address the things that reinforce their error. This is how it is for me when doing research. I never spend much time on things that make sense, only those that don’t. This is how I free my mind from preconceptions. Since theists can’t do that for themselves yet, don’t we have the responsibility to attempt to guide them (if we truly want to promote a society where we can shed fairy tales and get down to solving problems)?

It really angers me. If religion weren’t such a money-hog, can you imagine how much further we could have advanced technologically. If my lab had the millionth part of what christians give to their church in a year, we would have solved the problem of dark matter, dark energy, black hole singularities, and the gravitational hypothesis of matter. So this is a very personal issue for me.

I think you are wrong on the evolution crumbles part. There is ample proof out there to suggest that evolution happened and is not some stuff that darwin made up. Science does not take bullshit. It sifts bullshit out. So if darwin had made things up theory of evolution would have been kicked to dustbin long ago.

“why the bible? because it is the only book that teaches of a sacrifice on behalf of mankind, if you can find another faith that teaches that come back, think about it! just one faith teaches so.”

Why is it that when I Googled “gods sacrificing themselves” the first result was about the Aztec gods sacrificing themselves to become the sun for the benefit of humans? http://www.aztec-history.com/ancient-aztec-religion.html. It’s almost as though he hadn’t researched his claims at all.

Not to mention, he seems to be starting with an arbitrary requirement that the religion must “teach sacrifice on behalf of mankind”. Another theist-brick-wall I was arguing with once, when I challenged him on the Bible versus Qu’ran, said the Bible wins out because the other religions don’t have a resurrection.

… why is that important to whether it’s true or not?

They’ve conveniently selected a set of attributes, that only Christianity has them all, as a requirement as to what’s a valid religion or not.

Right. And beyond that, as it happens, other religions do have resurrections in them. Several of the other mystery religions that were popular around the time Christianity got started had them. –Not that knowing that would change anything. Those other religions died out or were subsumed into Christianity so I guess they don’t count. /snark

Jasper was speaking from a Christian perspective, explaining their worldview and why they think attacking Darwin will do any good. Christians think that if they can demonstrate anything negative about Darwin, that has some impact on Evolution, because they’re working within an authoritarian mindset.

If I thought creationists would listen, I would tell them the story of Glen Kuban, a creationist who went to Glen Rose, TX, to look at the Paluxy tracks. While there, he found evidence of a new explanation for the human-like tracks there and published his findings. All from an amateur “scientist.”
Or, how about the story of a divinity student who, through diligent notes and a scientific mind, managed to overthrow the entire biological consensus about the origins of species?

I could recommend plenty of science books that would clear up these misunderstandings. But I know you wouldn’t read them, so what’s the point?

That’s right. They have absolutely no interest in evolution. All they want is to avoid the onus of proof. As long as they can keep you trying to defend evolution, they are spared the trouble of proving the existence of god.

I’ve mentioned this on another FTB blog a while back, but here it is again: I no longer talk evolution to fundies. I tell them that just for the sake of argument I will go along with whatever they have to say about evolution – so now the ball is back in their court. They can produce their evidence for god’s existence and I won’t say a word while they do.

They insist that I must defend evolution, but I always refuse. “No, we’ve already come to an agreement about that. You just go ahead with your proof for god’s existence.” [So far, nothing.]

The choice is yours. Darwin or Jesus? Darwin’s Evolution or Jesus’ Creation (Mark 10:6)? The likeness of an ape or the likeness of God’s image? Racism or faith in Christ? Sexism and God’s instructions?

Indeed, sometimes the best method is to knock them out of their script. They been taught a certain line of questions and answers and if you refuse to go along with that, they quickly stumble because they don’t really have an intellectual position at all.

Actually, that was the thing that first got me thinking, way back. This guy I was working with didn’t go along with what I was saying and I quickly found that I didn’t know what to say next. I didn’t actually have any real arguments, just talking points.

There’s a lot of that kind of thing. The rank and file believers have been told by their priests that their religion is this or that and they haven’t bothered to check up on it. They’ll just claim that Christianity is the only religion that does X or has Y, and more often than not it’s complete bullshit. And then, on the rare occasion when it’s actually true, it’s irrelevant to whether Christianity is correct.

I don’t know how other people were taught science but way back when I was in elementary school there was nothing in science that I was asked to believe that couldn’t be demonstrated. Obviously it’s easier to set up the experiments for basic science than it is for the more complicated stuff where you need very expensive, sophisticated equipment. Even then other people have duplicated the experiment with the same results or it couldn’t have gotten published. My point is that science educators can walk us through everything we know about science step by step. Never are we discouraged from asking questions or told that something is true just because this or that person or book says it’s true. Newton was right because well see for yourself. Repeat the work he did and you’ll get the same results. Oh wait he turned out to be wrong about a few things. Not to worry, here’s what he didn’t (and honestly couldn’t possibly) account for. That’s science. it has nothing to do with faith or belief or anything else. I don’t like the word “believe” when it comes to science. I guess it’s applicable in some fields where some of the hypotheses can’t yet be tested, but I accept evolution as the best explanation of how life developed on our planet because there is evidence to demonstrate that this is how it happened. There’s no faith required. Just a lot of very smart people figuring stuff out. To equate that with being expected to believe things without any evidence at all is insulting to the many great people who devoted their lives to figuring out how things work in our world.

I have long held to this rule: if you can’t explain something in your own words, then you don’t understand it. This is especially obvious when people start referring to the laws of thermodynamics when it’s patently obvious they don’t even know what that means.

That’s what happened when Einstein discovered relativity.
Just to nitpick, Russell, but Einstein never won the Nobel Prize for either general or special relativity. He won the Nobel Prize for photonic theory (i.e., that light isn’t waves, but particles, and dust motes dancing in sunbeams do so because the individual light particles are knocking the dust motes around like billiard balls).
But I suspect you already knew that.

It’s my contention that most fundamentalists have no problem with evolution — they have a problem with speciation. But since speciation is the baby in the bath water, they throw it all out. Of course, their objections remain based in religious dogma and not science.

But as a guide to those who might want to explain it:

The fundamental precepts of evolution.

1. Very small changes over time. You’re not a clone of either your father or mother. That demonstrates evolution in action right there. In fact, you carry with you some small number of unique sequences in your DNA that mark you as a totally unique individual. This is why you can be convicted or exonerated of a crime using DNA analysis. That’s evolutionary theory in action. So is using DNA to determine who your father is. Maury Povitch and Jerry Springer could not do their “who’s the daddy” shows without evolutionary theory in action.

2. No radical changes in a single generation. If you found a crocoduck, or if you showed a cat giving birth to a dog, that would disprove evolutionary theory. This fundamentalist claim that evolutionary theory predicts monsters is what is known as “moronic”. It’s 180-degrees wrong. As far from the truth as is possible. In simplistic terms, the truth is that evolutionary theory makes this claim instead: “No mother ever gave birth to a child she did not recognize as her own”.

3. Not every member of a species mates. As alpha predators at the top of the food chain, we’re somewhat immune to this fact of life. But most animals die by being eaten by some other animal or by otherwise not surviving to mating age. Many species also place limits on who gets to mate through such things as combat (bighorn sheep, lions, etc.) or sexual displays (peacocks, birds of paradise, etc.).

4. Those who do get to mate are generally those better adapted to their specific environment or are somehow more sexually attractive to the opposite sex than those who don’t. That doesn’t mean “fittest” in the sense of “strongest”: it means best adapted. Such as the smartest apes mating with the smartest apes and out-surviving the less-smart apes because they were better at finding food or avoiding predators or in general surviving their environment. For them, “smart” was a better adaptation than “strong”.

5. If you separate a well-adapted species in one environment to a different environment, small changes will take place over time. Those better suited to the new environment will survive better. Eventually, if you look at that population, it will look substantially different from the population that it came from. And eventually, the members of those two different populations will not be able to mate with one-another. That’s speciation. And evolution in action.

6. Even species well suited to their environments will demonstrate small changes over time. Just not enough to result in speciation. For example, no caveman or cavewoman could digest cow’s milk. Every single one of them was lactose intolerant. It was only after the advent of agriculture that a small change occurred that allowed humans to digest lactose, giving birth to the dairy industry. This is evolution in action, and it’s still happening. For example, most Asians are still lactose intolerant. That’s why milk is not a big part of their diet, but yogurt (which is fermented so the amount of lactose is greatly reduced) is.

Point is, you don’t need to know all that much to explain evolution. Just those precepts are about all the average person needs to know.

I think you have the baby and the bathwater reversed, metaphorically speaking, but besides that, good. They want to throw out the bathwater, and they want to throw out speciation, so those would be parallels.

The most coherent follow-up I’ve heard to this rebuttal is that if it was a lie the disciples would have known that Jesus didn’t actually resurrect, and so wouldn’t have been willing to die for a cause they knew was fallacious.

I’m sure we both agree there are a number of things wrong with that argument, but it gives them a lot more wiggle room.

I got into a conversation recently with a guy who was doing the whole “how do you account for knowledge” thing. He wasn’t getting the answer he was looking for, so he just kept repeating the exact same question for multiple pages despite it having been answered in a dozen different ways. Not even a single flicker of understanding in any of his responses.

Depends how you define speciation. They have no problem with lizards that become other species of lizards and dogs that become other species of dogs, they just tend to assert the existence of some poorly-defined line that evolution cannot cross, e.g. Behe’s Edge of Evolution.

Comment submitted:
Somehow, I find myself running into these things more and more, where you just have to respond to things that you might otherwise have ignored. Most Recently, a series of Articles explaining Atheism, and published on the Pathos Evangelical Blog. God help us. Now, I looked Dr Yancey up, and found his work to be… non-earth shaking. What is more startling are his responses. In one to me, he suggests that he does not have the time to find all of the logical fallacies. Now I ignored that one, as being non-germane, and because I’ll go a long way not to call someone an idiot, just because they don’t take criticism as well as even a maladjusted child would, but the fact is, that this guy won’t live half so long as to find one. …Especially since he’d have to look up what a Logical fallacy is first. His conclusions so far, that Atheists like science because it bolsters their self image. (Not that it educes actual reality mind you) Also, “Beliefs,” contrary to what Sociologists and Anthropologists define that word to mean, are just beliefs until they are proven. His observations are trivial, and his conclusions specious. It’s pretty disappointing, but quite typical of the kind of argument that tries to pass as reasoned.http://www.patheos.com/blogs/blackwhiteandgray/author/georgeyancey/

This is also what I commonly hear. The failure with this argument is that they find it much more likely that a person rose from the dead than that people could have been fooled or mistaken about someone rising from the dead. Yes, they were in a position to know whether Jesus really did rise after death. But since when is it a given that just because a set of facts are available to someone that they properly interpret said facts? I never understand how they conclude that they would know if he really did rise, without fail.Think of how hard it is for people to discern basic facts in modern society, with facts much more available, yet we are very likely to screw it up still.

It just has to do with time. People who make those assertions don’t understand how much time is passing. They usually have a vague notion of “hundreds of thousands of years,” which is wrong, but not exactly a drop in the bucket. I usually have most success, not by arguing for evolution, but getting them to understand just how big millions of years actually is in terms of the human life span. If you can get them to understand that, then just pick your favorite line of species and show them how it really is. If they can’t or won’t understand, just move on.

Also, notice that they are assuming that the disciples did die because of their faith and, is it an independent reliable source for that claims?
Not that it matters of course, there are plenty of examples (as pointed by everyone here) of people diying for contradictory reasons, like people fighting for and against slavery.

I once heard about a monk who stablished the rules of genetic heritage. But that’s probably scientific propaganda.
Or that other guy, strongly theist, who defied God by saying that there is an invisible force who ties the earth to the sun and makes it revolve around the sun, like any other regular planet (heresy!) They claim it was the same guy who founded modern calculus (heresy^2)
And then, it is said in some ocultist rings that it was also a monk who put a name to the whole big bang theory thing

Also, the faster commenter was more specific (“photonic theory” vs “photoelectric effect”). I like the dust motes example though, but I was taught that he was trying to explain the absorption and re-emission of photons by metals.

If you noticed one of the guy’s emails said something about “who do you think profits from evolution” which is an absurd idea since churches and religious organizations obviously rake in all the cash. Sorry you missed that in the post. Thanks guys! I guess I’ll take my uhh..lame and sad comments elsewhere?

Sorry dude–just used to lame ass Xtians trying to be snarky–to be fair this is an old post and I don’t recall everything written in it–besides–lots gets lost in written translations, happens all the time ….

It’s been a pretty popular meme for years and years. Also, you could have asked for a clarification. Maybe it wasn’t funny to anyone who doesn’t get it but I don’t see how it would make sense from a Christian stand point either.

It would be silly to assume you’re a mind reader. It would be just as silly to think I would have to put in foot notes to a dumb joke. I’m not making grand statements about religion or politics, just making a joke that goes with a very popular meme.

The profit part in the post cracked me up because of how ironically stupid it was. I figured someone else would catch that and think it equally absurd. Maybe I’m the only one who can stand to pay attention to creationist emails.

not big on social media outside of this kind of stuff as I lean towards the introspective/misanthorpic side of things, from my standpoint it seemed as if you were saying Atheists were profiting from lack of true direction and cluelessness (since I didn’t understand the reference) so I went with my interpretation. Mistakes happen with non verbal/physical communications; no big dea happens often in these arenas–another reason why I stay away from over populated forums and pages save for promotion. That said, party on, I am audi.

You may be right at that; I read a few lines of creationst rebuttals and my head starts to hurt and my mouth twitches. Oh yea, the stupid burns like holy water on a demon’s skin. I congratulate you on getting through it LOL.